Blue light feasibility study report – key findings and recommendations

Report: 12
Date: 4 February 2010
By: Chief Executive

Summary

The purpose of this paper is to provide Members with a summary of the key findings and recommendations arising from the GLA commissioned Blue Light feasibility study.

A. Recommendation

That members

1. note the content of the report
2. consider which of the three governance and management options for a Blue Light Museum they would prefer
3. consider whether the MPA should support the completion of a round one London Heritage Fund bid
4. consider whether the MPA should support the development of a Blue Light partnership and Blue Light online and in doing so consider the financial implications for the MPA and the MPS of this recommendation

B. Supporting information

Introduction

1 In July 2009 the Greater London Authority (GLA) commissioned Stuart Davies Associates to undertake a feasibility study for a Blue Light joint emergency services museum. The purpose of the study was to determine the level of support for a Blue Light museum across the London Emergency Services (Metropolitan Police Service (MPS); London Ambulance Service (LAS) and the London Fire Brigade (LFA)) identify risks and issues and consider the business case and options for governance and management.

2 The full feasibility study produced by the consultants is attached as an appendix to this report – See Appendix 1.

Scope of the feasibility study

1 As outlined in the feasibility study the objectives of this project were to:

• assess the feasibility of a partnership or merger of the collections held by the LFA Museum, LAS and the MPS;
• identify, evaluate and make recommendations on potential delivery models for a Blue Light Museum; and,
• identify, evaluate and make recommendations on potential locations for a Blue Light Museum.

Findings

3 The full feasibility study can be found in Appendix 1 of this report. The following is a précis and ought to be considered alongside the study as a whole.

4 The study begins by providing an overview of the museums, collections and service provision across the LFB, LAS and MPS. It highlights that during the consultation [1] two particular concerns were expressed by consultees: concerns that service history and collections knowledge will be lost as a number of the collection custodians and volunteers are elderly; and, uncertainly about the future of the collections and services. The consultants found that some of the collections face uncertain futures, either because the current accommodation is not guaranteed, or because the current accommodation is unsuitable and in need of repair. The study states that management, funding and general support for some of the collections is lacking.

5 During the consultation process, the consultees were asked to consider the following:

• the opportunities that Blue Light presents;
• the issues and risks;
• governance and management;
• location, audience and offer; and,
• overall support and potential contribution.

4 There was a consistency of views across the services. Interviewees recognised the opportunities that a Blue Light Museum could provide: a better use of the collections and an enhanced opportunity to promote the history of the services; increased access; promotion of the services including recruitment and improving public perception; and, adding value to current education and community work.

6 There was also broad consensus amongst the consultees about the potential risks. These fell into four areas: financial; legal; reputational and organisational.

• Financial risks highlighted by consultees included the following: a lack of funding available due to budget restrictions; and, staff time and actual time needed to set up a Blue Light museum.
• Legal concerns expressed by the consultees included the following: clarity over collections ownership and future ownership; and, potential loss of control depending on the governance structure. The MPA had an additional concern. Police Authorities are not legally empowered to set up, finance and run museums.
• Consultees reputational concerns included: damage to the reputation of the services should Blue Light fail; and, concerns that Londoners would question why money was being spent on a museum when services were facing budgetary restrictions.
• Finally, consultees expressed concerns regarding organisational risks. These included: ensuring that there was buy in across the services and ensuring that there was a clear vision and focus for the proposed museum.

7 The study goes onto detail a potential vision for the proposed museum, highlighting that any such museum should have a strong educational purpose. A market assessment covering the visitor market in London is also provided in the report, with particular reference made to London 2012 and the opportunities that the Olympics and Paralympics Games will bring to London’s tourism market. Consideration is also given to a possible location for a museum with a recognition that the favoured location would need to have good transport links and be on a tourist itinerary.

8 The consultants found that internationally, emergency services museums bringing together fire and police collections are common. The study highlights a number of examples of these. However, currently there are no joint museums for the police, fire and ambulance services anywhere in the world and therefore a London Blue Light museum would be a unique venture.

9 The study highlights a number of possible governance and management options and suggests that the following three options should be considered in detailed by the services. The three options in full are as follows:

• A charitable company with service representation on the Board. The company sets up and manages the museum. As a separate legal entity it bears all risks and retains revenues;
• The services invite a charitable and or commercial partner to set up and run the museum. The partner has the brand licence and the services lend the collections on the basis that the partner will set up the management structures, bear the risk and retain the revenues; and finally,
• The services establish a partnership with another museum to manage collections and make them accessible through displays and education programmes.

Next steps and recommendations

10 The consultants outline five options on how the Blue Light museum could be progressed by the three emergency services. Strengths and weaknesses for each are included.

1. Maintain the current status quo
2. Partnership with another museum
3. A Blue Light partnership. This would involve the three services forming a partnership to deliver specific objectives through projects, raising funds for the projects, delivering them and providing development support for staff and volunteers. The partnership would focus on education and community work and collections care and management
4. Blue Light online. This would involve the three services forming a partnership to deliver a museum online and through temporary exhibitions and displays across London; and finally
5. A Blue Light Museum. This would require a governance and management model that enables the services to retain control of the assets, limit their financial liability and ensure the services reputations are not risked.

11 The consultants suggest that options C and D are combined which would allow the services to ‘test the waters’. If options C and D were deemed a success and there was clear evidence to indicate that a Blue Light museum was needed the services could progress to option E.

12 The consultants recommend that should the services agree to move forward they develop partnership and capacity by completing a Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) round one bid.

13 MPA Members should also be aware that HLF funding process has two rounds. A round one application involves outlining the project for which funding is sought, including an estimation of costs and how funding, including HLF, will be sourced. As part the round one bid, funding applicants can ask for development funding support to provide the necessary information to move from round one to round two. MPA Members should be aware that no financial support is provided for the round one stage. Round two requires a number of specialist reports on issues such as audience development, activity programmes and management and maintenance. The period between round one application day and round two decision day could be anything between 12 - 24 months.

14 MPA Members should be aware that the consultants have initially approached the London Region HLF with the proposal. Whilst HLF indicated that they would be interested in the proposal, any potential funding from HLF would be as part of a mix of funding partners and HLF would be a minority funder. Therefore the consultants stress the need to consider commercial development partners. The consultants provide estimate costs, suggesting that Blue Light has a capital price tag of £25 – 50 million and revenue implications of £1 - 3 million per annum.

15 MPA Members should be aware that the Mayor – the feasibility study was commissioned by the GLA as a result of the Mayor’s interest in setting up a Blue Light museum – is keen to move forward with the round one HLF bidding process. The GLA are committed to leading the project into this next stage and are considering funding sources to deliver this next stage of the work.

16 Alongside developing the round one bid, the consultants also recommend that the services begin developing partnership working and capacity – options C and D. The recommendation is that the services plan and deliver an education led project inspired and based on their collections. This would include online collections access and learning resources. In the study the consultants estimate that this project could cost between £200,000 and £250,000, however, there is no information in the study on how this cost was arrived at.

17 MPA Members should be aware that in taking forward options three and four, the services would need to find resources, both staff time and financial, to deliver on the ambitious plans outlined in the study. Members should also be aware that option D would require increased capacity in digital, communications and marketing skills, but would however, generate income through online trading.

C. Race and equality impact

1 No direct impact results from this paper, though it is understood that in taking forward the recommendation to develop an education project and online resources, the services would be increasing access to the collections online, thereby providing additional opportunities for Londoners to better understand the role of the three services. Research to date into confidence and the police service has indicated that increased information provision can result in increased confidence in the police service and a better understanding of the role and remit of the police service as a whole.

D. Financial implications

1 There are considerable cost implications in taking forward the recommendations outlined in the study. Whilst the GLA are looking at funding sources to take forward the HLF round one funding bid, the three services would need to find funds to plan and deliver the educational programme. The consultants estimate that this could cost up to £250,000. In addition, the report highlights that the services would require increased capacity in digital, communication and marketing skills to take forward the online educational programme. Consultees from all three services spoke about the budgetary restraints facing the services and Members should take this into account when considering this recommendation.

E. Legal implications

1 Police Authorities are not legally empowered to set up, finance and run museums. Comprehensive details in regards to the legal implications were listed in the update paper presented at the October 2009 Strategic and Operational Policing Committee.

F. Environmental implications

None given.

G. Background papers

• None

H. Contact details

Report author: Hamera Asfa Davey, MPA

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback